This unlawful retaliation matter comes before the Court on Defendants Lower Cape May Regional School District Board of Education, Thomas Frisoli, and Jack Pfizenmayer's (collectively, "Defendants") motion for summary judgment.[1] (Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff Charlotte Giles alleges Defendants failed to promote her because she filed an EEOC complaint against her previous employer. In the Complaint, Plaintiff details how several coworkers physically and sexually harassed her and management failed to properly respond. Plaintiff brings her claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980).[2] For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I.

For the purpose of this motion, the Court resolves any factual disputes in favor of Plaintiff. See Pollock v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Long Lines, 794 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding that when deciding motions for summary judgment, courts must construe the facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.)

In 2006, Plaintiff worked as a full-time custodian at Cape May County Technical School ("CMCT") and concurrently as a substitute custodian for the Lower Cape May Regional School District ("LCM"). (DSF[3] ¶ 1.)

In 2008, Plaintiff applied and received an offer for a full-time custodial position at LCM. (DSF ¶ 2.) She declined the offer, however, after learning of the position's salary - an amount less than she was then making. (DSF ¶ 2; Defs.' Ex. E.) Consequently, Plaintiff continued to work both full-time at CMCT and part-time at LCM.

In March 2010, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against CMCT with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (PSF ¶ 11.) The EEOC complaint details a number of unlawful events that allegedly occurred during Plaintiff's employment with CMCT:

 Plaintiff was assaulted by an employee in May 2007, resulting in injuries to her right elbow, forearm, bicep, and shoulder. (Pl.'s Ex. G.)

 Later that month, Plaintiff was told that the incident was "horse play" and that she did not qualify for Workers' Compensation. (Pl.'s Ex. G.)

 In 2008, Plaintiff was stalked by a coworker; upon reporting the stalking incident to the CMCT administration, Dr. Hudanich, the Affirmative Action Officer, claimed to have taken care of the problem but failed to follow through. (Pl.'s Ex. G.)

 Shortly after the stalking incident, a coworker grabbed Plaintiff's breasts and pushed his private parts into her backside. (Pl.'s Ex. G.)

 The same coworker also told Plaintiff he "could bend [her] over and rape [her]...." (Pl.'s Ex. G.)

 When Plaintiff reported the incidents to Dr. Hudanich, she told Plaintiff she should feel blessed to have been raped nineteen years ago and refused to take "effective and prompt action" against Plaintiff's harasser. Instead of requiring her ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.